Close Encounters FX.

[Colin Droidmilk]

Anyone know how the flares on the lens were achieved for the UFO lights? They spill out majestically all over the frame, mutating perfectly, with perfect naturalism. I'm as baffled about this as I ever was. Because If the flares were from the original pass of the lit-up model and the UFOs were matted in how could the soft-edge transparent flares and glows possibly be preserved and spread over the live-action? Were all those beams and flares on the lens animated? If so, it's incredible. Or were the UFOs filmed in front of front-projected live-action, or what? I just can't work it out. Still, how great to be stumped by a trick from a 33 year-old movie...

 

[Contec]

JJ Abram came back with a timemachine....

 

[tgreco]

if I recall, it had to do with the fact that Douglas Trumball used black mattes for his shots
(instead of blue or the now standard green screens)

same with the lighting in Blade Runner

so, yes, they were lit models filmed and then composited

and I agree, they are some of the most amazing SPFX ever put to film

 

[vistaVision]

The ufo light effects were captured in a number of light/lens flare passes (the beauty of repeat-pass motion control photography) on a smoke stage. While blue screen (or other types of) photo-chemical mattes may have been generated for the ships themselves, the light elements were not usually "matted" but rather double exposed (aka "DX"). Often the fx team would create roto mattes to hold out the light elements from areas of the background plate (like when a ufo flew behind something) and fx animation was used to create light elements inter-active with the background as well.

Does that make any sense?

Marcus

 

[darth_myeek]

JJ Abram came back with a timemachine....

Sweet. lol:lol

 

[Colin Droidmilk]

if I recall, it had to do with the fact that Douglas Trumball used black mattes for his shots
(instead of blue or the now standard green screens)

same with the lighting in Blade Runner

so, yes, they were lit models filmed and then composited

and I agree, they are some of the most amazing SPFX ever put to film

Thanks! Watched it again last night for the first time in years. Taken me all day to get back to reality, it's such a beautiful film.

 

[Colin Droidmilk]

The ufo light effects were captured in a number of light/lens flare passes (the beauty of repeat-pass motion control photography) on a smoke stage. While blue screen (or other types of) photo-chemical mattes may have been generated for the ships themselves, the light elements were not usually "matted" but rather double exposed (aka "DX"). Often the fx team would create roto mattes to hold out the light elements from areas of the background plate (like when a ufo flew behind something) and fx animation was used to create light elements inter-active with the background as well.

Does that make any sense?

Marcus

Yes, it does! Thanks a lot! Double exposure. Okay!

I'm fascinated by the CE3K FX because I know so little about it. No books about it etc. unlike ILM. Though it's quite nice not to have seen a single photo of the UFO models themselves in all these years (except the mothership), so they still have that ungraspable, ever-changing quality 30 years later. Trumbull's achievement has been kind of eclipsed by the impact of SW, but the truth is of course that both teams simultaneously brought motion control to maturity, with Doug's Dad, Don Trumbull engineering both motion control cameras used on the two films.

Feel free to turn this thread into a general CE3K thread, folks, if you're interested...

 

[DaddyfromNaboo]

You can clearly see that when you look at the shadows the woman and the kid generate. The only light source they are interacting with is coming from the right (and then there is one from out of the direction of the camera).

I think Trumbull developed his knack for lighting effects when he worked on 2001 and created the light tunnel effects. Ah, that man knew his technology. I say it always shows how much blood sweat and tears went into a project, and "actual" work.
Physical effects sometimes have a bit of the "lets see what we get" in them that makes them IMO so interesting to look at. I´m at a loss for words here at the moment, but I hope you get what I´m trying to say. Not dissin da digital crewz here, yo !

 

[phase pistol]

Toy-eees!

 

[vistaVision]

Physical effects sometimes have a bit of the "lets see what we get" in them that makes them IMO so interesting to look at. I´m at a loss for words here at the moment, but I hope you get what I´m trying to say. Not dissin da digital crewz here, yo !

You are so right about that! On an fx animation downshooter, an optical printer or on stage, we were always fooling around with making our own diffusion and scratch filters, and trying different shutter angles and exposures and lens stops, and every individual beauty, matte, smoke, fx lighting or whatever pass was carefully and extensively shot (usually just a select frame from the entire scene) at differing exposures and with differing filters, giving us a "wedge" for each element to select from. After careful study of these tests an exposure sheet for all the elements that made up the shot was written. With experience you got a good idea of what you would likely get but the experimental nature of this work often rendered interesting results!

Back to CE3K: Not all the shots of flying saucers were composited against live action. Greg Jein and his crew did build several miniature sets and landscapes for the visual effects work as well.

 

[robn1]

Cinefex, Fantastic Films, Cinefantastique, and American Cinematographer all did articles on the effects for CE3K.

Trumbull disliked the look of blue screen and rarely used it. He favored double pass back lit mattes. The lights were done on a separate pass in a smoke filled tent. Several shots required a 90 second exposure per frame just for the lights, it could take all day to shoot a few seconds of film.

By shooting the lights separately, they could vary the exposure when the two passes were combined, to adjust the "glow" of the lights.

 

[Contec]

This shows the effects and IS very funny http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlKvPpij-QQ

 

[GKvfx]

A former boss of mine worked on Blade Runner (actually, three of my former bosses did) and he was asked by someone once, "What program did you use to get the lens flares in Blade Runner?"

His reply, "We took a camera and pointed a light at it."

Gene

PS - I highly recommend the Cinefantastique double issue on CE3K. Really covers the movie well.

 

[Jedi2016]

A former boss of mine worked on Blade Runner (actually, three of my former bosses did) and he was asked by someone once, "What program did you use to get the lens flares in Blade Runner?"

His reply, "We took a camera and pointed a light at it."

LOL.. I didn't realize that people actually don't know what lens flares actually are. True, I have software that does flares, but it's for creating things that I don't have the optics to do any other way.

 

[Rylo]

Always seemed simple to me. You take a bright light with a dark background and add a camera, you're gonna get the same flare or halo the human eye picks up.

LOL.. I didn't realize that people actually don't know what lens flares actually are. True, I have software that does flares, but it's for creating things that I don't have the optics to do any other way.

 

[DaddyfromNaboo]

A former boss of mine worked on Blade Runner (actually, three of my former bosses did) and he was asked by someone once, "What program did you use to get the lens flares in Blade Runner?"

His reply, "We took a camera and pointed a light at it."

Gene

PS - I highly recommend the Cinefantastique double issue on CE3K. Really covers the movie well.

lol:lol Classic

Anyone remember the SFX academy award that was given to the crew of "ID4" ?

And how THEY did the lens flares in the Airforce One and Jet flyby scenes ? And everyone was puzzled how they did it and how much they cost ? Turned out they used out of the box model kits and flashlights lol:lol

 

[Colin Droidmilk]

Toy-eees!

Ice-cream!

One of the great aspects of the script is the way Neary's family can only express the indescribable in terms of junk food: cookies, chocolate bars, ice-cream, pizza - even the kid neighbour says Neary looks like a 50/50 bar! Only Neary, the transcendentalist-to-be, at one point rises above it, likening the UFO to a shell...

 

[Treadwell]

A former boss of mine worked on Blade Runner (actually, three of my former bosses did) and he was asked by someone once, "What program did you use to get the lens flares in Blade Runner?"

His reply, "We took a camera and pointed a light at it."

Reminds me of a John Ford quote I saw once:

Q: How did you shoot that stampede?
FORD: With a camera.

 

[Colin Droidmilk]

You can clearly see that when you look at the shadows the woman and the kid generate. The only light source they are interacting with is coming from the right (and then there is one from out of the direction of the camera).

I think Trumbull developed his knack for lighting effects when he worked on 2001 and created the light tunnel effects. Ah, that man knew his technology. I say it always shows how much blood sweat and tears went into a project, and "actual" work.
Physical effects sometimes have a bit of the "lets see what we get" in them that makes them IMO so interesting to look at. I´m at a loss for words here at the moment, but I hope you get what I´m trying to say. Not dissin da digital crewz here, yo !

Trumbull's such a genius with light. I've read explanations of the slitscan process he invented for the star gate in 2001, but I've never been able to properly grasp it. It remains pure wizardry. There's nothing that could improve that sequence. One might complain that having only the two planes is limited, a sign of the limited technology, but the fact that there are only those two planes is conceptually bizarre and frightening. As an environment through which you're moving it is conceptually horrific. Perfect for the disorientation Kubrick's after. With CG, where you can do anything, would anyone think to make active use of such spareness to heighten disorientation?

I don't want to dis digital too much either, but I have to say that that sequence, together with the hyperspace interior from SW, and even the mid-70s Dr. Who title sequence still beat CGI for abstract whooshing cosmic tunnel effects. All CG attempts at this stuff still belie their mathematical origin, seems to me, while the analogue sequences above are perfectly organic and real-world, and still baffle me as to how they were done. It still amazes me how the cash-strapped, FX-weak BBC came up with that opening sequence for Who...

 

[CessnaDriver]

It's like pinball vs video games.

In pinball, crazy s*** happens you never expected because sometimes the laws of physics can still surprise us.

I think when you work with the physical, there is more serendipitous discovery.

There is a good mixture for both together of course.